Disclaimer: I am not at all surprised by this, though. More surprised that they haven't actually implemented it yet (while it wouldn't surprise me if, down the line, it turns out they, in fact, already did)

Who cares indeed.Business with sole purpose of making money thinks of way to make more money. More at 11.

karambits

While I am prone to be cynical and apathetic about this, too, emka, it's definitely going to cause gamers to suffer. We will have longer queue times, game mechanics will be designed even less for entertainment and more for profit, and development time will be diverted to this nonsense even more so than it already is. The slow creep of microtransactions and gambling mechanics into 'AAA games' have been pushing me more and more toward indie games over the years.

MKJ wrote:

Who cares indeed.Business with sole purpose of making money thinks of way to make more money. More at 11.

Nah, this apologetic attitude is the easy way out. Micro transactions and loot boxes are a blight upon gaming. Playing videogames is something a lot of people enjoy. For some people it's a hobby. Some people would call it a passion of theirs. Micro transactions are causing a serious degradation of that enjoyment. Unfortunately, stuff like this is not where it'll end.

Yeah I'm never buying another activision game.

Transient wrote:

Crates are popping up in all kinds of games now. It's harder and harder to avoid.

The weirdest one I've played with crates recently is Horizon Zero Dawn.It may have them, but they can't be bought as microtransactions, only with in-game currency.It's like they fully intended the game to have microtransactions, but got cold feet at the last minute.

The other game I play where I've only just noticed they have crates is The Division. Good game, very pretty, basically Ubisoft's answer to Borderlands / Destiny.But it have got them thar crates. 100% cosmetics, but there they are.Personally, I don't even understand why people buy the cosmetics in The Division. You get plenty drop during normal play, and the crated ones all seem out of step with the overall aesthetic of the world. Plus, you earn keys to open crates during normal play without spending a penny anyway, so if you want to look an utter tool, you can still do so without spending cash.

But going forward, I think there are serious issues with crates and microtransactions in general that need to be addressed. They're designed to predate upon addictive personalities, and I suspect the people who spend the most are the least able to afford the cost. I think the industry is downplaying this and governments don't understand the threat.

Well I think it’s an opinion you need to consider. I’m probably like the majority of gamers out there. We don’t care. We just play and ignore the rest. There’s a select few that are bothered enough to make a big deal about it...

Mat Linnett wrote:

Transient wrote:

But going forward, I think there are serious issues with crates and microtransactions in general that need to be addressed. They're designed to predate upon addictive personalities, and I suspect the people who spend the most are the least able to afford the cost. I think the industry is downplaying this and governments don't understand the threat.

This.

As soon as you can use real world cash to buy your creates then it could cause issues for people; it's no different to buying a scratch card, really.

xer0s wrote:

Well I think it’s an opinion you need to consider. I’m probably like the majority of gamers out there. We don’t care. We just play and ignore the rest. There’s a select few that are bothered enough to make a big deal about it...

Of course I've considered it; just because you don't notice it or care, doesn't mean it doesn't affect you. How much of a developer's resources do you think go into implementing microtransactions that could have instead gone into making a game's campaign longer? And, for example, are you so sure that the item drops from enemies are the same as they would have been if microtransactions weren't in a game? I'm happy you can play your games and ignore loot crates, but some people have addictive personalities or impulse control issues which are exploited by these developers/publishers in a predatory way. We still pay $60 for a full game, but we get less and less for our money. On top of that we have microtransactions, season passes, collector's editions, and other bullshit. I think I just recently saw a headline for the next Assassin's Creed game locking out a bonus mission unless you buy the more expensive version of the game. Fuck that shit.

Yeah but if you think about it, games have been around $60 for 20+ years. Also they lose value at an insane rate and you can buy them for $30 a few months after release. Historically, a "base game" has never been cheaper. Maybe you should be glad they are making up the extra cost with optional season passes and micro-transactions rather than charging $100 a game up front....hmmmm?

yeah games are ridiculously cheap given that probably more people work on a tripe-A title than work on productivity software and that costs a lot more to buy, especially if it's some industry-standard kit like Adobe or Salesforce or whatever

I'm pretty sure PC games used to be the equivalent of €50 while the base price is €60 now.

Having said that, I would be in favor of jacking the price up to €70 if that means we'd get rid of micro-transactions and ridiculous DLC schemes.And don't be naive. These days the way DLC is done and how microtransactions are implemented is the videogame equivalent of putting only 8 cookies in a roll instead of 10 while dropping the price by 10% and saying your cookies just got cheaper.Also, publishers know very well that micro transactions net them more money than €10 extra for a purchase does.

shaft wrote:

Yeah but if you think about it, games have been around $60 for 20+ years. Also they lose value at an insane rate and you can buy them for $30 a few months after release. Historically, a "base game" has never been cheaper. Maybe you should be glad they are making up the extra cost with optional season passes and micro-transactions rather than charging $100 a game up front....hmmmm?

Whoa! Someone is making sense!

xer0s wrote:

shaft wrote:

Yeah but if you think about it, games have been around $60 for 20+ years. Also they lose value at an insane rate and you can buy them for $30 a few months after release. Historically, a "base game" has never been cheaper. Maybe you should be glad they are making up the extra cost with optional season passes and micro-transactions rather than charging $100 a game up front....hmmmm?

Whoa! Someone is making sense!

lol... anyone that's ok with being matched in multiplayer with someone else that has an advantage over you because they paid more for the game is an idiot. An idiot and their money are soon parted.

Is that what’s happening? Sorry I though were we’re talking about dlc maps and cosmetics.

Just watched that first video, they weren’t talking about “more powerful” weapons just different ones. Matching people up who’ve bought addons with people who haven’t as a way to advertise. How does that change your gaming experience?

If I'm matched based on ownership if ingame items, I'm not matched based on skill level. In fact, the patents speaks of matching rookie players against more experienced players who own items that the system has figured out the rookie would like to have, just to make the item more desirable based on the performance of the other player. I guess you'll understand the problem there.

So just every other game since the dawn of online multiplayer.

What? eh, no?

oh, you’ve found a game where you were never unevenly matched against another opponent? because it happens to me every time i play no matter the game no matter the matchmaking. Just check the scoreboard next time you play, there is always someone doing shit and someone dominating.

I never said match making is always perfect. Besides, you're giving me anecdotal evidence, which isn't evidence at all.I'd rather see a company try to arrange fair (and fun) matches and fail at that than have a company who arranges matches based on loot.

You're being uncharacteristically apologetic about this. The fact that you went from inflation all the way to match-making fails as your argument shows me you're all over the place and might just as well be trolling here.

microtransactions... sounds like my sex life...

Micropenis^^^... ...

Eraser wrote:

I'd rather see a company try to arrange fair (and fun) matches and fail at that than have a company who arranges matches based on loot..

Who cares what they match make off of as long as the game is balanced? That whole video is a couple nerds lighting their hair on fire over nothing to get some Youtube views. Its called marketing and making money, something that businesses are supposed to do in order succeed and keep making games that we all enjoy.

The whole micro transaction argument is incredibly lame imo, no troll. Stick to campaigning against pre-ordering.

shaft wrote:

Who cares what they match make off of as long as the game is balanced?

That's the problem. This match making system intentionally matches you against significantly better or significantly worse players. It's the exact opposite of what a decent matchmaking system is supposed to do. This will actively degrade the enjoyment you'll get out of your game.